Convincing Huds and Cockpits - NO CROSSHAIRS!

[Sanguinius 1]

The title really, legitimately, explains the purpose of this thread and what it entails.

I'm sick of magical, perfect crosshairs that tell you exactly where the round or missile will hit. Usually, pilots have two HUDs - the real, awesome HUD that the helmet has for you, and the 'bleh' HUD with fluoro-green everywhere (at least in Arma 2) that just looks odd to the eye. It's white in Arma 3, but the concept of 'bleh' remains the same.

Bohemia Interactive CAN integrate actual aircraft systems into the HUD, while keeping it simple and easy to understand. I will use the A-10C from DCS as an example of a cockpit and HUD.

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/images/warthog/HUD-2.jpg (432 kB)

It simply has everything you need to operate your aircraft. That's the simplest way to put it. Everything BIS puts in with artificial HUD, this one does - and more realistically, cooler, and more challenging. And with more tools. It has the targeting pod's FLIR (which could possibly be accessed by pressing your optics button - kind of like what happens with attack choppers in ACE, where the pilot can use the gunner cam.) and which could possibly be used in conjunction with your Maverick.

I'm not saying piloting in Arma 3 should be a hardcore simulator, which is still probably what some of you will interpret this as. I am saying that creating a convincing and realistic Heads Up Display and cockpit will greatly add to immersion, beauty, and capability.

[sqb-sma 66]

Also the crosshair thing doesn't work with trackIR. So... yeah we can't actually aim our guns and rockets.

[Harzach 2517]

Also the crosshair thing doesn't work with trackIR. So... yeah we can't actually aim our guns and rockets.

Learn how to use deadzones and muting.

[max power 21]

In arma, you can make a static hud that is able to accurately show the distance and angle of objects (I know because I've made one), or you can make a helmet based hud that is usually always wrong if it's referring to the outside world. I think currently we have the helmet based ones.

[HorbeySpector 164]

This is not a flight sim. I think the fixed-wing hud is fine as it is right now. Someone could mod an A-10 with a nice HUD, though. I'd rather see the developers spend more time on things that are more important for the full game, such as Ai- and Performance optimization.

[twistking 204]

I'm sick of magical, perfect crosshairs that tell you exactly where the round or missile will hit. Usually, pilots have two HUDs - the real, awesome HUD that the helmet has for you, and the 'bleh' HUD with fluoro-green everywhere (at least in Arma 2) that just looks odd to the eye. It's white in Arma 3, but the concept of 'bleh' remains the same.

Don't call it HUD. It is not supposed to simulate a HUD in any form. The white arma GUI is, well... the user interface of arma 3. Since there is no real working HUD for aircrafts, targeting is done with the GUI.

It is simply a lack of proper HUD implementation and it is not good. It is an immersion-breaker and it is neither authentic, nor realistic. It is a bad substitute. I call it the "dull white diamond" and it has to go away!

Please note the two related links in my signature.

Edited July 7, 2013 by twistking

[byku 13]

Umm... what's the difference between:

FULL ON HARDCORE SIMULATOR NAAHAHA

Realistic cockpits and HUDs.

Isn't realistic... realistic enough? :P

[kylania 568]

I'm sick of magical, perfect crosshairs that tell you exactly where the round or missile will hit.

Actually your DCS example above, and reality, does in fact have a "magical, perfect crosshair that tells you exactly where the round or missile will hit".

[mmaruda 20]

Actually your DCS example above, and reality, does in fact have a "magical, perfect crosshair that tells you exactly where the round or missile will hit".

It's not magical and perfect, it's just advanced avionics and is not always that precise. Compare this to the crosshair on the Ka-50 or better yet add a descent wind.

[Harzach 2517]

It's not magical and perfect, it's just advanced avionics and is not always that precise. Compare this to the crosshair on the Ka-50 or better yet add a descent wind.

The A-10's gun pipper is exceedingly precise. Not magical, but as close to perfect as you can get, as it is IRL. It also corrects for wind.

[dragon01 902]

Yeah. The precision of the sight isn't an issue. The issue is that there's ArmA GUI overlay for what should be done with a diegetic HUD. In AII, HUDs were there, but they were hardly usable, and had "fake" crosshairs overlaid on them anyway. Even it TAB-lock doesn't go (it really, really should), it should be done so that everything is actually displayed on HUD, not on the GUI. Also, diegetic interface would give some purpose to the pilot's helmet. F-35 doesn't have a HUD, instead using a HMD (Helmet Mounted Display). If a grunt hops into an F-35, AII-style, he would have no helmet and therefore no HMD. Of course, since ArmA most likely won't simulate backup instrument panels for aircraft that use a HMD, this would render the plane unflyable without a helmet, but if you don't have a pilot's helmet, you're probably not supposed to fly the plane anyway.

[twistking 204]

Yeah. The precision of the sight isn't an issue. The issue is that there's ArmA GUI overlay for what should be done with a diegetic HUD. In AII, HUDs were there, but they were hardly usable, and had "fake" crosshairs overlaid on them anyway. Even it TAB-lock doesn't go (it really, really should), it should be done so that everything is actually displayed on HUD, not on the GUI. Also, diegetic interface would give some purpose to the pilot's helmet. F-35 doesn't have a HUD, instead using a HMD (Helmet Mounted Display). If a grunt hops into an F-35, AII-style, he would have no helmet and therefore no HMD. Of course, since ArmA most likely won't simulate backup instrument panels for aircraft that use a HMD, this would render the plane unflyable without a helmet, but if you don't have a pilot's helmet, you're probably not supposed to fly the plane anyway.

i could not agree more.

[Harzach 2517]

*good stuff*

i could not agree more.

Same here.

[Sanguinius 1]

I wasn't aware the A-10Cs sight was perfect. Adjusting for wind? Dear lord...

Sorry for misuse of terms, by the way. I don't have that much knowledge on these systems...

Also, to whoever asked the question, there IS a difference between the convincing cockpits, HUDs, and now HMDs, and a full on simulator like DCS (might as well use it as the benchmark.) DCS forces you to operate your aircraft in a way that is representative of real life, with of course the implementation of peripherals such as mouses, TrackIR, keyboards, and all those nice things. The convicing Cockpits, HUDs and HMDs, would not make you operate the aircraft in that way. It would, however, use the instruments of the aircraft, real HUDs (with of course some artistic license for the time period) and improve immersion.

And the 'it's too hard to implement' nonsense is repeated too much. In ACE (a modded piece of work, not even by company employees) I recall that there was an AH-6J littlebird with DAGR/FLIR. The pilot had a HMD, and if he called a target out for the gunner a green square would appear on the HMD, which could accurately track the target and looked absolutely badass.

MFDs could be used on the top right of the screen to keep track of ammo (for all your weapons), and you could change it's function as well, considering the normal HUD or HMD would have an ammo counter for your particular weapon. It could show you the distance of the target you had locked on, it could show your fuel levels...

There really is no limit when you have a good deal of artistic license on some of the most technologically advanced military systems.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Sanguinius